Dick's
is a sporting goods retailer offering a wide range of
brand-name sporting goods and equipment. (Compl. ¶ 2.)
It was founded in 1948 under the name Dick's Clothing and
Sporting Goods, Inc., and in April 1999, changed its name to
Dick's Sporting Goods, Inc. (Id. ¶ 3.)
Dick's is headquartered in Coraopolis, Pennsylvania, and
its stock trades on the New York Stock Exchange under the
ticker symbol DKS. (Id.)

On May
16, 2017, Plaintiff commenced the instant action by filing a
complaint against Dick's alleging that throughout the
Class Period Defendants made materially false and misleading
statements regarding Dick's business and operations
(“Complaint”). (Id. ¶ 4.) In
particular, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants “made
false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (i) Dick's had overstated its adjusted EBITDA
amounts; (ii) accordingly, the Company lacked effective
internal controls; and (iii) as a result of the foregoing,
Dick's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.” (Id.)
Plaintiff alleges that as a result of these material
misstatements, which were revealed by a Form 8-K/A report
filed with the SEC on May 12, 2017, Dick's share price
fell as much as $6.82, resulting in significant losses and
damages for Plaintiff and other class members. (See
Id. ¶¶ 5-9.)

On the
same day that Plaintiff filed his Complaint, counsel for
Plaintiff published notices announcing the initiation of this
securities class action (“Notices”). (Apton Decl.
Ex. 3; Portnoy Decl. Ex. A; Lieberman Decl. Ex. A; Rosenfeld
Decl. Ex. A.)[3]
The Notices informed Retirement System filed a response
stating that it “recognize[d] that it did not suffer
the greatest loss.” (Doc. 23.) On August 1, 2017,
Ironworkers filed a notice that its motion was unopposed.
(Doc. 25.)

IL
Discussion

A.
Appointment of Lead Plaintiff

The
procedures set forth in the PSLRA, 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4,
govern the appointment of lead plaintiff in securities class
actions. The PSLRA was enacted with the goal of
“preventing] lawyer-driven litigation” and
“ensuring] that parties with significant holdings in
issuers, whose interests are more strongly aligned with the
class of shareholders, will participate in the litigation and
exercise control over the selection and actions of
plaintiffs' counsel.” Peters v. Jinkosolar
Holding Co., No. 11 Civ. 7133(JPO), 2012 WL 946875, at
*4 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 19, 2012) (quoting Weltz v. Lee,199 F.R.D. 129, 131 (S.D.N.Y. 2001)); see also In re
Oxford Health Plans, Inc., Sec. Litig.,182 F.R.D. 42,
43-44 (S.D.N.Y. 1998); H.R Conf. Rep. No. 104-369. Before its
enactment, “professional” plaintiffs
overwhelmingly and disproportionately profited,
“irrespective of the culpability of the
defendants” and “at the expense of shareholders
with larger stakes.” Schulman v. Lumenis,
Ltd., No. 02 Civ.1989(DAB), 2003 WL 21415287, at *2
(S.D.N.Y. June 18, 2003) (quoting In re Party City Sec.
Litig.,189 F.R.D. 91, 103 (D.N.J. 1999)).

Consistent
with this intent, under the PSLRA, courts are to appoint as
lead plaintiff “the member or members of the purported
plaintiff class that the court determines to be most capable
of adequately representing the interests of class
members.” 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(i). There is
a rebuttable presumption that the appropriate plaintiff is
the person or group of persons that (1) filed the original
complaint or filed a motion in response to the notice, (2)
has the largest financial interest in the relief being
requested, and (3) meets the requirements of Rule 23 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Id. §
78u-4(a)(3)(B)(iii)(I). Other class members may rebut this
presumption by providing evidence that the presumptively
adequate plaintiff “will not fairly and adequately
protect the interests of the class” or “is
subject to unique defenses that render such plaintiff
incapable of adequately representing the class.”
Id. § 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(iii)(II).

Here,
because Ironworkers filed a timely motion, has the largest
financial interest, and otherwise meets the requirements of
Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as further
detailed below, I appoint it Lead Plaintiff.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;1.
...

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.